DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The instant application No. 18792018 has claims 1-20 are pending.
2 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-10, 12, 16, 18-19 and 21-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10785093in view of Ichiki et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0205898 A1; hereinafter Ichiki).
Instant application 18792018
Patent no: 10785093
1. A computing device comprising: a memory; an interface; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and the interface, the one or more processors operative to: access performance information across each of a plurality of network paths based on a generated network topology including the plurality of network paths; conduct node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths; and determine one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths.
1. A computing device comprising: a memory; an interface; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and the interface, the one or more processors operative to: generate a first network topology comprising a plurality of network paths; allocate health checks across the plurality of network paths in order to monitor links in the first network topology;
2. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the memory is configured to store at least one of the generated network topology, the performance information, the aggregated performance information, or the indications of performance.
Claim 1, wherein the memory is configured to store at least one of the first network topology, the measured communication attributes, the processed communication attribute.
3. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the performance information comprises measurement of at least one of latency, number of dropped packets, packet loss rate, jitters, and available bandwidth.
22. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the at least first attribute comprises measurement of latency, number of dropped packets, packet loss rate, and jitters.
4. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein accessing performance information comprises utilizing a UDP packet-based protocol.
Claim 1, iteratively measure communication attributes across each of the plurality of network paths utilizing a UDP-based packet protocol
5. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the generated network topology is generated for at least one of layer 3 or layer 2 of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard.
Claim 14, the network topology is generated for layer 3 of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard; Claim 15, generating the first network topology for layer 2 of the OSI standard.
6. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further operative to: compare the generated network topology to an expected topology; and use an external data source to reconcile the generated network topology to the expected topology.
5. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further operative to compare the generated first network topology to an expected topology.
7. The computing device of Claim 6, wherein the external data source comprises at least one of configuration files, technicians’ information, automated switch building, subnet analysis, or SNMP query information regarding run-time configuration states of devices.
7. The computing device of claim 6, wherein the external data source comprises at least one of configuration files, technicians' information, automated switch building, subnet analysis, or SNMP query information regarding run-time configuration states of devices.
8. The computing device of Claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are operative to access performance information across each of the plurality of network paths by using the reconciled generated network topology.
6. The computing device of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are further operative to use an external data source to reconcile the generated first network topology to the expected topology.
9. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are operative to access performance information across each of the plurality of network paths by using the generated network topology, and wherein the one or more processors manipulate paths between nodes by changing port numbers.
8. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are operative to measure communication attributes across each of the plurality of network paths by using the generated first network topology, and wherein the one or more processors manipulate paths between nodes by changing port numbers.
10. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the indications of performance indicate failures on individual paths of the plurality of network paths, wherein the one or more processors are operative to determine one or more root causes for the indicated failures.
1. detect failures on individual paths of the plurality of network paths by processing the aggregated communication attributes corresponding to the plurality of network paths; analyze each of the detected failures to determine at least one root cause for each of the failures;
11. The computing device of Claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are operative to identify at least one mitigation for at least one determined root cause.
1. identify at least one mitigation for at least one determined root cause
12. The computing device of Claim 11, wherein identifying at least one mitigation comprises at least one of generating a subsequent network topology, generating an alarm indicating the root cause, shutting down a faulty node, rerouting packets of data away from the faulty node, disabling ports on the faulty node, or cycling power to the faulty node.
9. The computing device of claim 1, wherein identifying at least one mitigation comprises at least one of generating a subsequent network topology, generating an alarm indicating the root cause, shutting down a faulty node, rerouting packets of data away from the faulty node, disabling ports on the faulty node, or cycling power to the faulty node.
13. A computer-implemented method comprising: accessing performance information across each of a plurality of network paths based on a generated network topology including the plurality of paths; conducting node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths; and determining one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths.
10. A computer-implemented method comprising: generating a first network topology comprising a plurality of network paths, wherein each one of the network paths includes at least two nodes and at least one link; allocating health checks across the plurality of network paths in order to monitor links in the first network topology;
14. The computer-implemented method of Claim 13 further comprising: comparing the generated network topology to an expected topology; and reconciling the generated network topology to the expected topology.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11 further comprising using an external data source to reconcile the generated first network topology to the expected topology.
15. The computer-implemented method of Claim 13, wherein the generated network topology comprises a network topology for at least one of: power to racks, power to hosts, or power to network devices.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising generating the first network topology for at least one of: power to racks, power to hosts, or power to network devices.
16. The computer-implemented method of Claim 13, wherein accessing the performance information across each of the plurality of network paths comprises using the generated network topology and manipulating paths between two nodes by manipulating port numbers.
18. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein measuring the communication attributes across each of the plurality of network paths comprises using the generated first network topology, and manipulating paths between two nodes by manipulating port numbers.
17. The computer-implemented method of Claim 13, further comprising: determining one or more root causes for at least one failure on individual paths of the plurality of network paths, wherein the at least one failure is indicated in the indications of performance.
10. detecting failures on individual paths of the plurality of network paths by processing the aggregated communication attributes corresponding to the plurality of network paths; determining at least one root cause for one or more of the detected failures based on analyzing the one or more of the detected failures
18. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: accessing performance information across each of a plurality of network paths based on a generated network topology including the plurality of paths; conducting node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths; and determining one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths.
19. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: generating a network topology comprising a plurality of network paths, wherein each one of the network paths includes at least two nodes and at least one link; allocating health checks across the plurality of network paths in order to monitor links in the network topology
19. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of Claim 18, wherein accessing performance information comprises utilizing a UDP packet-based protocol.
19. iteratively measuring communication attributes across each of the plurality of network paths in accordance with a UDP-packet protocol;
20. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of Claim 18, wherein the generated network topology is generated for at least one of layer 3 or layer 2 of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard.
21. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the network topology is generated for at least one of layer 3 or layer 2 of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard.
However, Patent fails to disclose conduct node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths and determine one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths
Ichiki disclose a memory; an interface; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and the interface, the one or more processors operative to: (See 0317, A computer system executes those programs to provide the processing functions discussed in the preceding sections. The programs may be encoded in a computer-readable medium; See 0104, One communication interface 107a is coupled to the edge node 200 so as to exchange data therewith) conduct node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths; (20110205898-See 0138, The ingress node of each flow is supposed to propose candidates for distribution paths in response to alarm information. To achieve this, the ingress node performs path state data collection in advance. The path state data collection is a process executed by the ingress node of a specific flow to collect information about the state of links and routers constituting each path of that flow. By executing this process, the ingress node of a flow manages a plurality of paths to the egress node and their condition. More specifically, the ingress node sends a state collection packet to each path on a regular basis. The state collection packet carries data items such as sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameters. Once placed on a specific path, the state collection packet collects values of those data items at each router that it visits along the path. When the state collection packet reaches its intended egress node, the packet is reflected back to the source ingress node, so that the ingress node can obtain the sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameter of the path.) and determine one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths. (See 0138, he ingress node performs path state data collection in advance. The path state data collection is a process executed by the ingress node of a specific flow to collect information about the state of links and routers constituting each path of that flow; When the state collection packet reaches its intended egress node, the packet is reflected back to the source ingress node, so that the ingress node can obtain the sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameter of the path)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed by Patent to include collecting measurement results related to paths and links. The motivation to combine is link congestion is to reconfigure the network so that the traffic on the current path will be distributed to other alternative paths (See 0013).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 4-8, 10-12, 15, 17, 19-20 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11575559 in view of Ichiki et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0205898 A1; hereinafter Ichiki).
Instant application 18792018
Patent no: 11575559
1. A computing device comprising: a memory; an interface; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and the interface, the one or more processors operative to: access performance information across each of a plurality of network paths based on a generated network topology including the plurality of network paths; conduct node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths; and determine one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths.
1. A computing device comprising: a memory; an interface; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and the interface, the one or more processors operative to: generate a first network topology comprising a plurality of network paths, wherein individual network paths of the plurality of network paths comprise at least two nodes of a plurality of nodes and at least one link of a plurality of links;
2. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the memory is configured to store at least one of the generated network topology, the performance information, the aggregated performance information, or the indications of performance.
1. wherein the memory is configured to store at least one of the first network topology, the measured communication attributes, the processed communication attributes, the detected failures, or the at least one determined root cause.
3. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the performance information comprises measurement of at least one of latency, number of dropped packets, packet loss rate, jitters, and available bandwidth.
10. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the at least first attribute comprises measurement of latency, number of dropped packets, packet loss rate, and jitters.
4. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein accessing performance information comprises utilizing a UDP packet-based protocol.
1. iteratively measure communication attributes across each of the plurality of network paths utilizing a UDP-based packet protocol
5. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the generated network topology is generated for at least one of layer 3 or layer 2 of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard.
15. the network topology is generated for layer 3 of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard; 16. generating the network topology for layer 2 of the OSI standard.
6. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further operative to: compare the generated network topology to an expected topology; and use an external data source to reconcile the generated network topology to the expected topology.
4. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further operative to compare the generated first network topology to an expected topology.
7. The computing device of Claim 6, wherein the external data source comprises at least one of configuration files, technicians’ information, automated switch building, subnet analysis, or SNMP query information regarding run-time configuration states of devices.
6. The computing device of claim 5, wherein the external data source comprises at least one of configuration files, technicians' information, automated switch building, subnet analysis, or SNMP query information regarding run-time configuration states of devices.
8. The computing device of Claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are operative to access performance information across each of the plurality of network paths by using the reconciled generated network topology.
1. generate a first network topology comprising a plurality of network paths, wherein individual network paths of the plurality of network paths comprise at least two nodes of a plurality of nodes and at least one link of a plurality of links;
9. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are operative to access performance information across each of the plurality of network paths by using the generated network topology, and wherein the one or more processors manipulate paths between nodes by changing port numbers.
7. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are operative to measure communication attributes across each of the plurality of network paths by using the generated first network topology, and wherein the one or more processors manipulate paths between nodes by changing port numbers.
10. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the indications of performance indicate failures on individual paths of the plurality of network paths, wherein the one or more processors are operative to determine one or more root causes for the indicated failures.
1. detect failures on individual paths of the plurality of network paths by processing the aggregated communication attributes corresponding to the individual nodes of the plurality of nodes; and analyze each of the aggregated communication attributes to determine at least one root cause for each of the failures;
11. The computing device of Claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are operative to identify at least one mitigation for at least one determined root cause.
8. operative to identify at least one mitigation for at least one determined root cause, wherein identifying at least one mitigation comprises at least one of generating a subsequent network topology,
12. The computing device of Claim 11, wherein identifying at least one mitigation comprises at least one of generating a subsequent network topology, generating an alarm indicating the root cause, shutting down a faulty node, rerouting packets of data away from the faulty node, disabling ports on the faulty node, or cycling power to the faulty node.
8. The computing device of claim 1, the one or more processors operative to identify at least one mitigation for at least one determined root cause, wherein identifying at least one mitigation comprises at least one of generating a subsequent network topology, generating an alarm indicating the root cause, shutting down a faulty node, rerouting packets of data away from the faulty node, disabling ports on the faulty node, or cycling power to the faulty node.
13. A computer-implemented method comprising: accessing performance information across each of a plurality of network paths based on a generated network topology including the plurality of paths; conducting node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths; and determining one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths.
11. A computer-implemented method comprising: generating a network topology comprising a plurality of network paths, wherein individual paths of the plurality of network paths include at least two nodes of a plurality of nodes and at least one link of a plurality of links; aggregating at least a first attribute of the measured communication attributes across individual nodes of the plurality of nodes to form aggregated communication attributes;
14. The computer-implemented method of Claim 13 further comprising: comparing the generated network topology to an expected topology; and reconciling the generated network topology to the expected topology.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11 further comprising comparing the generated network topology to an expected topology.
15. The computer-implemented method of Claim 13, wherein the generated network topology comprises a network topology for at least one of: power to racks, power to hosts, or power to network devices.
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 11 further comprising generating the network topology for at least one of: power to racks, power to hosts, or power to network devices.
16. The computer-implemented method of Claim 13, wherein accessing the performance information across each of the plurality of network paths comprises using the generated network topology and manipulating paths between two nodes by manipulating port numbers.
19. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein measuring the communication attributes across each of the plurality of network paths comprises using the generated network topology, and manipulating paths between two nodes by manipulating port numbers.
17. The computer-implemented method of Claim 13, further comprising: determining one or more root causes for at least one failure on individual paths of the plurality of network paths, wherein the at least one failure is indicated in the indications of performance.
11. determining at least one root cause for one or more of the detected failures based on analyzing the aggregated communication attributes corresponding to the individual nodes of the plurality of network nodes.
18. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: accessing performance information across each of a plurality of network paths based on a generated network topology including the plurality of paths; conducting node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths; and determining one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths.
20. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: generating a network topology comprising a plurality of network paths, wherein individual network paths of the plurality of network paths include at least two nodes of a plurality of nodes and at least one link of a plurality of links;
19. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of Claim 18, wherein accessing performance information comprises utilizing a UDP packet-based protocol.
20. Iteratively measuring communication attributes across each of the plurality of network paths in accordance with a UDP-packet protocol;
20. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of Claim 18, wherein the generated network topology is generated for at least one of layer 3 or layer 2 of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard.
22. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 20, wherein the network topology is generated for at least one of layer 3 or layer 2 of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard.
However, Patent fails to disclose conduct node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths and determine one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths
Ichiki disclose a memory; an interface; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and the interface, the one or more processors operative to: (See 0317, A computer system executes those programs to provide the processing functions discussed in the preceding sections. The programs may be encoded in a computer-readable medium; See 0104, One communication interface 107a is coupled to the edge node 200 so as to exchange data therewith) conduct node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths; (20110205898-See 0138, The ingress node of each flow is supposed to propose candidates for distribution paths in response to alarm information. To achieve this, the ingress node performs path state data collection in advance. The path state data collection is a process executed by the ingress node of a specific flow to collect information about the state of links and routers constituting each path of that flow. By executing this process, the ingress node of a flow manages a plurality of paths to the egress node and their condition. More specifically, the ingress node sends a state collection packet to each path on a regular basis. The state collection packet carries data items such as sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameters. Once placed on a specific path, the state collection packet collects values of those data items at each router that it visits along the path. When the state collection packet reaches its intended egress node, the packet is reflected back to the source ingress node, so that the ingress node can obtain the sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameter of the path.) and determine one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths. (See 0138, he ingress node performs path state data collection in advance. The path state data collection is a process executed by the ingress node of a specific flow to collect information about the state of links and routers constituting each path of that flow; When the state collection packet reaches its intended egress node, the packet is reflected back to the source ingress node, so that the ingress node can obtain the sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameter of the path)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed by Patent to include collecting measurement results related to paths and links. The motivation to combine is link congestion is to reconfigure the network so that the traffic on the current path will be distributed to other alternative paths (See 0013).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-5, 8-14, 19, 21-22 and 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12074756 in view of Ichiki et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0205898 A1; hereinafter Ichiki).
Instant application 18792018
Patent no: 12074756
1. A computing device comprising: a memory; an interface; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and the interface, the one or more processors operative to: access performance information across each of a plurality of network paths based on a generated network topology including the plurality of network paths; conduct node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths; and determine one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths.
1. A computing device comprising: a memory; an interface; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and the interface, the one or more processors operative to: generate a first network topology comprising a plurality of network paths, measure performance information across each of the plurality of network paths in an ordered manner; aggregate performance information across individual paths of the plurality of network paths, wherein aggregating performance information across individual paths comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths
2. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the memory is configured to store at least one of the generated network topology, the performance information, the aggregated performance information, or the indications of performance.
2. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the memory is configured to store at least one of the first network topology, the measured performance information, the processed performance information, the detected failures, or the one or more root causes.
3. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the performance information comprises measurement of at least one of latency, number of dropped packets, packet loss rate, jitters, and available bandwidth.
4. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the performance information comprises measurement of latency, number of dropped packets, packet loss rate, jitters, and available bandwidth.
4. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein accessing performance information comprises utilizing a UDP packet-based protocol.
5. The computing device of claim 1, wherein measuring performance information comprises utilizing a UDP packet-based protocol.
5. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the generated network topology is generated for at least one of layer 3 or layer 2 of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard.
25. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 22, wherein the network topology is generated for at least one of layer 3 or layer 2 of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard.
6. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further operative to: compare the generated network topology to an expected topology; and use an external data source to reconcile the generated network topology to the expected topology.
8. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further operative to compare the generated first network topology to an expected topology.
7. The computing device of Claim 6, wherein the external data source comprises at least one of configuration files, technicians’ information, automated switch building, subnet analysis, or SNMP query information regarding run-time configuration states of devices.
10. The computing device of claim 9, wherein the external data source comprises at least one of configuration files, technicians' information, automated switch building, subnet analysis, or SNMP query information regarding run-time configuration states of devices.
8. The computing device of Claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are operative to access performance information across each of the plurality of network paths by using the reconciled generated network topology.
9. The computing device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further operative to use an external data source to reconcile the generated first network topology to the expected topology.
9. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are operative to access performance information across each of the plurality of network paths by using the generated network topology, and wherein the one or more processors manipulate paths between nodes by changing port numbers.
11. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are operative to measure performance information across each of the plurality of network paths by using the generated first network topology, and wherein the one or more processors manipulate paths between nodes by changing port numbers.
10. The computing device of Claim 1, wherein the indications of performance indicate failures on individual paths of the plurality of network paths, wherein the one or more processors are operative to determine one or more root causes for the indicated failures.
1. Determine one or more root causes for detected failures on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths.
11. The computing device of Claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are operative to identify at least one mitigation for at least one determined root cause.
12. operative to identify at least one mitigation for at least one determined root cause
12. The computing device of Claim 11, wherein identifying at least one mitigation comprises at least one of generating a subsequent network topology, generating an alarm indicating the root cause, shutting down a faulty node, rerouting packets of data away from the faulty node, disabling ports on the faulty node, or cycling power to the faulty node.
12. The computing device of claim 1, the one or more processors operative to identify at least one mitigation for at least one determined root cause, wherein identifying at least one mitigation comprises at least one of generating a subsequent network topology, generating an alarm indicating the root cause, shutting down a faulty node, rerouting packets of data away from the faulty node, disabling ports on the faulty node, or cycling power to the faulty node.
13. A computer-implemented method comprising: accessing performance information across each of a plurality of network paths based on a generated network topology including the plurality of paths; conducting node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths; and determining one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths.
13. A computer-implemented method comprising: generating a network topology comprising a plurality of network paths, wherein individual paths of the plurality of network paths include at least two nodes of a plurality of nodes and at least one link of a plurality of links; aggregating the measured performance information across individual nodes of the plurality of nodes and individual links of the plurality of links to form aggregated performance information
14. The computer-implemented method of Claim 13 further comprising: comparing the generated network topology to an expected topology; and reconciling the generated network topology to the expected topology.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 13 further comprising comparing the generated network topology to an expected topology.
15. The computer-implemented method of Claim 13, wherein the generated network topology comprises a network topology for at least one of: power to racks, power to hosts, or power to network devices.
19. The computer-implemented method of claim 13 further comprising generating the network topology for at least one of: power to racks, power to hosts, or power to network devices.
16. The computer-implemented method of Claim 13, wherein accessing the performance information across each of the plurality of network paths comprises using the generated network topology and manipulating paths between two nodes by manipulating port numbers.
21. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein measuring the performance information across each of the plurality of network paths comprises using the generated network topology and manipulating paths between two nodes by manipulating port numbers.
17. The computer-implemented method of Claim 13, further comprising: determining one or more root causes for at least one failure on individual paths of the plurality of network paths, wherein the at least one failure is indicated in the indications of performance.
13. determining one or more root causes for detected failures on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes of the plurality of nodes and individual links of the plurality of links.
18. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: accessing performance information across each of a plurality of network paths based on a generated network topology including the plurality of paths; conducting node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths; and determining one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths.
22. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: generating a network topology comprising a plurality of network paths, wherein individual network paths of the plurality of network paths include at least two nodes of a plurality of nodes and at least one link of a plurality of links; measuring performance information across each of the plurality of network paths in an ordered manner; aggregating measured performance information across individual nodes of the plurality of nodes and individual links of the plurality of links to form aggregated performance information
19. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of Claim 18, wherein accessing performance information comprises utilizing a UDP packet-based protocol.
24. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 22, wherein measuring performance information comprises utilizing a UDP packet-based protocol.
20. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of Claim 18, wherein the generated network topology is generated for at least one of layer 3 or layer 2 of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard.
25. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 22, wherein the network topology is generated for at least one of layer 3 or layer 2 of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard.
However, Patent fails to disclose conduct node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths and determine one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths
Ichiki disclose a memory; an interface; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and the interface, the one or more processors operative to: (See 0317, A computer system executes those programs to provide the processing functions discussed in the preceding sections. The programs may be encoded in a computer-readable medium; See 0104, One communication interface 107a is coupled to the edge node 200 so as to exchange data therewith) conduct node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths; (20110205898-See 0138, The ingress node of each flow is supposed to propose candidates for distribution paths in response to alarm information. To achieve this, the ingress node performs path state data collection in advance. The path state data collection is a process executed by the ingress node of a specific flow to collect information about the state of links and routers constituting each path of that flow. By executing this process, the ingress node of a flow manages a plurality of paths to the egress node and their condition. More specifically, the ingress node sends a state collection packet to each path on a regular basis. The state collection packet carries data items such as sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameters. Once placed on a specific path, the state collection packet collects values of those data items at each router that it visits along the path. When the state collection packet reaches its intended egress node, the packet is reflected back to the source ingress node, so that the ingress node can obtain the sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameter of the path.) and determine one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths. (See 0138, he ingress node performs path state data collection in advance. The path state data collection is a process executed by the ingress node of a specific flow to collect information about the state of links and routers constituting each path of that flow; When the state collection packet reaches its intended egress node, the packet is reflected back to the source ingress node, so that the ingress node can obtain the sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameter of the path)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed by Patent to include collecting measurement results related to paths and links. The motivation to combine is link congestion is to reconfigure the network so that the traffic on the current path will be distributed to other alternative paths (See 0013).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 13, 15 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto ( US 8050182 B2) in view of Ichiki et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0205898 A1; hereinafter Ichiki).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Yamamoto disclose a computing device comprising: access performance information across each of a plurality of network paths (Col. 8 Lines 64-Col. 9, Line 24, the measurement results in the monitoring target section is stored in the analysis result storing DB; Col. 9 Lines 31-34, (71) In the measurement result storing DB 34, as illustrated in FIG. 7, each record includes a group identifier (ID) reception quality, and plurality of pieces of data in the section. In the analysis result storing DB 35; interpreted that the measured and stored in a group ID orderly manner) based on a generated network topology including the plurality of network paths; (Col. 4 Lines 59-Col. 5, Line 6, constituting the physical network are made to autonomously construct a logic tree corresponding to the physical network) )
However, Yamamoto fails to disclose a memory; an interface; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and the interface, the one or more processors operative to: conduct node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths and determine one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths
Ichiki disclose a memory; an interface; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and the interface, the one or more processors operative to: (See 0317, A computer system executes those programs to provide the processing functions discussed in the preceding sections. The programs may be encoded in a computer-readable medium; See 0104, One communication interface 107a is coupled to the edge node 200 so as to exchange data therewith) conduct node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths; (20110205898-See 0138, The ingress node of each flow is supposed to propose candidates for distribution paths in response to alarm information. To achieve this, the ingress node performs path state data collection in advance. The path state data collection is a process executed by the ingress node of a specific flow to collect information about the state of links and routers constituting each path of that flow. By executing this process, the ingress node of a flow manages a plurality of paths to the egress node and their condition. More specifically, the ingress node sends a state collection packet to each path on a regular basis. The state collection packet carries data items such as sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameters. Once placed on a specific path, the state collection packet collects values of those data items at each router that it visits along the path. When the state collection packet reaches its intended egress node, the packet is reflected back to the source ingress node, so that the ingress node can obtain the sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameter of the path.) and determine one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths. (See 0138, he ingress node performs path state data collection in advance. The path state data collection is a process executed by the ingress node of a specific flow to collect information about the state of links and routers constituting each path of that flow; When the state collection packet reaches its intended egress node, the packet is reflected back to the source ingress node, so that the ingress node can obtain the sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameter of the path)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed by Yamamoto to include collecting measurement results related to paths and links. The motivation to combine is link congestion is to reconfigure the network so that the traffic on the current path will be distributed to other alternative paths (See 0013).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto discloses the memory is configured to store at least one of the generated network topology, the performance information, (Col. 8 Lines 64-Col. 9, Line 24, the measurement results in the monitoring target section is stored in the analysis result storing DB) the aggregated performance information, or the indications of performance.
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto disclose the performance information comprises measurement of at least one of latency, number of dropped packets, packet loss rate, jitters, and available bandwidth. (Col. 9 Lines 8-15, when the "interval of calculating measurement results" is 10 seconds, the reception results of service traffic are compared with "threshold of reception quality" and the reception quality is determined every 10 seconds. If "threshold of reception quality" specifies 1 percent as the packet loss ratio and the actual packet loss ratio is 1.5 percent, it is determined that the reception quality is bad)
Regarding claim 15, Yamamoto discloses the generated network topology comprises a network topology for at least one of: power to racks, power to hosts, or power to network devices. (Col. 7 Lines 65-Col.9 Line 9)
Regarding claim 18, Yamamoto discloses access performance information across each of a plurality of network paths (Col. 8 Lines 64-Col. 9, Line 24, the measurement results in the monitoring target section is stored in the analysis result storing DB; Col. 9 Lines 31-34, (71) In the measurement result storing DB 34, as illustrated in FIG. 7, each record includes a group identifier (ID) reception quality, and plurality of pieces of data in the section. In the analysis result storing DB 35; interpreted that the measured and stored in a group ID orderly manner) based on a generated network topology including the plurality of network paths; (Col. 4 Lines 59-Col. 5, Line 6, constituting the physical network are made to autonomously construct a logic tree corresponding to the physical network) )
However, Yamamoto fails to disclose A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: conduct node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths and determine one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths
Ichiki disclose a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: (See 0317, A computer system executes those programs to provide the processing functions discussed in the preceding sections. The programs may be encoded in a computer-readable medium; See 0104, One communication interface 107a is coupled to the edge node 200 so as to exchange data therewith) conduct node analysis of the plurality of network paths, wherein conducting node analysis comprises aggregating performance information across individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths; (20110205898-See 0138, The ingress node of each flow is supposed to propose candidates for distribution paths in response to alarm information. To achieve this, the ingress node performs path state data collection in advance. The path state data collection is a process executed by the ingress node of a specific flow to collect information about the state of links and routers constituting each path of that flow. By executing this process, the ingress node of a flow manages a plurality of paths to the egress node and their condition. More specifically, the ingress node sends a state collection packet to each path on a regular basis. The state collection packet carries data items such as sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameters. Once placed on a specific path, the state collection packet collects values of those data items at each router that it visits along the path. When the state collection packet reaches its intended egress node, the packet is reflected back to the source ingress node, so that the ingress node can obtain the sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameter of the path.) and determine one or more indications of performance on individual paths of the plurality of network paths based on processing the aggregated performance information corresponding to the individual nodes and individual links of the individual paths. (See 0138, he ingress node performs path state data collection in advance. The path state data collection is a process executed by the ingress node of a specific flow to collect information about the state of links and routers constituting each path of that flow; When the state collection packet reaches its intended egress node, the packet is reflected back to the source ingress node, so that the ingress node can obtain the sleep node count, path vacancy, and power consumption parameter of the path)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed by Yamamoto to include collecting measurement results related to paths and links. The motivation to combine is link congestion is to reconfigure the network so that the traffic on the current path will be distributed to other alternative paths (See 0013).
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Ichiki and, further in view of Blair et al. (Patent No. US 8,072,901 B1; hereinafter Blair)
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Yamamoto in view of Ichiki fails to disclose accessing performance information comprises utilizing a UDP packet-based protocol.
Blair discloses accessing performance information comprises utilizing a UDP packet-based protocol. (8,072,901 B1, Col. 9 lines 39-41, The source continues to probe only the preferred paths until a trigger occurs that indicates a need/benefit to probe all paths and determine whether a better path exists; interpreted the continue to probe each preferred paths; Col. 7 Lines 39-41, probe packets UDP; Col. 8 Lines 33-39)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method and system disclosed by Yamamoto in view of Ichiki to include the measure the paths with a UDP probe periodically. The motivation to combine is only sending probes over the preferred path during steady state (no triggers), the likelihood of responses and the quality (accuracy) of the responses are increased (Col. 4 Lines 30-34).
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Ichiki and further in view of Kracht (Patent No. US 6,377,987 B1).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Yamamoto in view of Ichiki fails to disclose the generated network topology is generated for at least one of layer 3 or layer 2 of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standard.
Kracht disclose generating the network topology for layer 2 of the OSI standard. (col. 17, lines 26-32 and fig. 9, element 920, topology is generated based on layer 2 and layer 3 information that was collected and processed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamamoto in view of Ichiki to include Kracht’s layer-2 and layer-3 topology generating to accurately manage network device interrelation and arrangements.
Claims 6-8 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Ichiki and further in view of Illiadis (US 6614762 B1).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Yamamoto in view of Ichiki fails to disclose the one or more processors are further operative to: compare the generated network topology to an expected topology; and use an external data source to reconcile the generated network topology to the expected topology.
Illiadis disclose the one or more processors are further operative to: compare the generated network topology to an expected topology; (col. 1, lines 39-56, if updated information is received by a switch, it is compared with the existing topology information and changes will automatically be updated) and use an external data source to reconcile the generated network topology to the expected topology (Col. 2 Lines 15-20, Nodes exchange database information using PTSEs (PNNI Topology State Elements). PTSEs contain topology characteristics derived from link or node state parameter information.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamamoto, Wang, Blair and Morse to include Illiadis’ topology comparison and update to efficiently manage the network.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto disclose the external data source comprises at least one of configuration files, technicians’ information, automated switch building, subnet analysis, (Figure 25, col. 4, lines 59 – col. 5, line 6) or SNMP query information regarding run-time configuration states of devices.
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto in view of Ichiki fails to disclose the one or more processors are operative to access performance information across each of the plurality of network paths by using the reconciled generated network topology.
Illiadis disclose the one or more processors are further operative to: compare the generated network topology to an the one or more processors are operative to access performance information across each of the plurality of network paths by using the reconciled generated network topology. (col. 1, lines 39-56, if updated information is received by a switch, it is compared with the existing topology information and changes will automatically be updated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamamoto , Wang, Blair and Morse to include Illiadis’ topology comparison and update to efficiently manage the network.
Claims 9-10 and 16 -17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Ichiki and further in view of Krauppiah (US 8520556 B2).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Yamamoto teaches measure communication attributes across each the plurality of paths by using the generated first network topology, Yamamoto in view of Ichiki do not teach the processing unit manipulates paths between nodes by changing port numbers.
Karuppiah teaches (col. 11, line 57 – col. 12, line 6) the processing unit manipulates paths between nodes by changing port numbers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamamoto in view of Ichiki to include Karuppiah’s adjustment of port numbers to achieve optimal data routing.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Yamamoto disclose the indications of performance indicate failures on individual paths of the plurality of network paths, wherein the one or more processors are operative to determine one or more root causes for the indicated failures. (Col. 2 Lines 30-37, Reception quality is degraded by the congestion of service traffic. Using this relationship, the monitoring server 280 extracts a link that is used by all of the transmission paths that are "deteriorated", and the extracted link is estimated to be the location of a failure. Thereby, in the example illustrated in FIG. 1, link L2 used by both of the paths 1 and 2 is estimated to be the location of a failure)
Claim 11-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Ichiki and further in view of Filsfils et al. (Pub. No. US 2006/0164975 A1; hereinafter Filsfils).
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto in view of Ichiki fails to disclose the one or more processors are operative to identify at least one mitigation for at least one determined root cause.
Filsfils disclose the one or more processors are operative to identify at least one mitigation for at least one determined root cause. (See ¶0026, if an edge device detects a node or link failure that prevents it from communicating with a neighboring routing domain, the edge device reroutes at least some data packets addressed to that domain to a backup edge device which, in turn, forwards the packets to the neighboring domain)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to modify Yamamoto in view of Ichiki to include rerouting packets if a node fails. The motivation to combine is to quickly converge on the new network topology with minimal data loss at the edge of the network (See ¶0025).
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto in view of Ichiki fails to disclose identifying at least one mitigation comprises at least one of generating a subsequent network topology, generating an alarm indicating the root cause, shutting down a faulty node, rerouting packets of data away from the faulty node, disabling ports on the faulty node, or cycling power to the faulty node.
Filsfils discloses rerouting packets of data away from the faulty node (See ¶0026, if an edge device detects a node or link failure that prevents it from communicating with a neighboring routing domain, the edge device reroutes at least some data packets addressed to that domain to a backup edge device which, in turn, forwards the packets to the neighboring domain)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to modify Yamamoto in view of Ichiki to include rerouting packets if a node fails. The motivation to combine is to quickly converge on the new network topology with minimal data loss at the edge of the network (See ¶0025).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bejerano et al. (Pub. No. US 20050081116 A1)-See 0012, Disclosed and claimed herein is a novel two-phased technique for fully and efficiently monitoring link latencies and faults in an ISP or Enterprise IP network, using path-oriented tools. Some embodiments of the technique are failure-resilient, and ensure complete coverage of measurements by selecting monitoring stations such that each network link is always in the routing tree of some station. The technique also reduces the monitoring overhead (cost), which consists of two cost components: (1) the infrastructure and maintenance costs associated with monitoring stations and (2) the additional network traffic due to probe messages. Minimizing the latter is especially important when information is collected frequently (e.g., every 15 minutes) to monitor continually the state and evolution of the network.
Savage et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0195835 A1)-See 0013, The method includes identifying an active path connected to the router based on at least one active link connected to the router. The method also includes monitoring prescribed attributes of the active path connected to the router, and detecting a change in at least one of the prescribed attributes of the connected active path. The method also includes outputting an update message, specifying the change, to a second router according to a prescribed routing protocol. The identification of an active path based on at least one active link enables prescribed attributes of to be evaluated in terms of an active path instead of individual links, enabling aggregation of prescribed attributes (e.g, metrics) of active links associated with the active path. Moreover, the outputting of an update message that specifies the change in the at least one of the prescribed attributes of the connected active path enables neighboring routers in a network to select paths for optimized routing of data flows based on changes in dynamic attributes of the network that may affect network traffic or throughput despite no change in network topology.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEJIS DAYA whose telephone number is (571)270-7817. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Tejis Daya/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights